Ok… well I’m not going to argue, I’m not going to fight, but I will make a couple of points here.
Photographic evidence is proof, and you can’t state that it isn’t.
it is evidence, but it’s not scientific evidence in any way shape or form. If you think it is, you need to look back into some of your highschool science books. Look for the definition of “proof”, “theory”, and “evidence” as it relates to science. Photographs do not cut it.
Some images may be fake, some may not. How do you know the difference? Because it can’t be scientifically proven?
actually most photo’s can be proven to have not been faked. That doesn’t really mean that they are real… it can still be errors on the film, or in developement that cause problems as well, but we can with something like 90+% certainty discern a photo which is faked. In this day of computer technology, it has actually become less and less easy to fake things to the quality level that is required to fool professional film lab techs.
That’s an erroneous statement, and one that sets itself up for potential failure. The history of science and man is wrought with concepts once unproveable being proven. The roundness of the earth. The revolving around the sun of the planets. Man being able to fly with the aid of aircraft. The existance of the Atom. The neutron. The presence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in every facet of our lives.
The point is, what can’t be proven today may be proven tomorrow as our capabilities expand.
To bring it all back together - there are numerous paranormal investigators who consider rods to be evidence of ghosts. Others think it is proof of aliens. There is photographic and video evidence of rods. As well as orbs. Evidence which cannot be explained or attributed to anything currently known to man.
In all of your sighted cases, we are looking at a situation where some one has a theory which is the simplest answer possible for the technology of the day, and which is disproven by new information which was unavailiable. Since photographs cannot be reproduced, rendering the same result, by different individuals, there is no experiment which can use a photograph as evidence for scientific inquiry. Without that, the entire premise of attempts to proof such existance with photographic evidence, is useless to science.
It’s up to you to decide if you want to believe the proof that’s available. A photograph that can’t be explained as a camera trick or a fake can easily be cited as proof. It’s not at al in the same realm of Christian’s validating the existance of God via the Bible.
I’ll agree that a photo is more valid than the bible as a proof of something (at least to you and I), however, it’s validity, as I’ve hopefuly shown, is still worthless as far as a “proof” is concerned. Photographic evidence should be used as a launching ground for other inquiry… but should never be used by itself as a proof of anything.
Oh… and just for the record. How do you know it’s not fake? Because someone else said so, or because you have examined the film in a lab and through technical experience, have found it to be non fake? There’s a big difference. Individual’s have bias’ and can be manipulated into giving false data. Unless the experiment can be reproduced by a scientist who is not connected in any way to the author of the photo, again, it’s not very valid.
now prove it to me that there r no ghots and spirits exits.
as u want us to prove that there r???
it as i said …those who see belive it those u dont…either fake it or deny it…
please read this blue… this post was made at the beginning of this thread.
!!!READ BEFORE YOU POST!!!
Ok folks, This is going to be a clean, college level discussion.
I guerenty that in college you will get a verbal smack in the head for this type of response. The quote goes something like “those with outrageous claims, must have outrageous proof.” The “fact” of spiritual existance is NOT the simplest of all possible answers. The simplest possible answer doesn’t have to be proofed, it simply is the basis from which we start scientific inquiry. When a theory comes along which contradicts the simplest possible answer, then the person making the theory must provide proof. There is NOTHING in science which says that those defending the status quo must provide proof of anything.
**
But hey, if you find it, I will gladly walk up to the front gate and poke a soldier in the eye. 
